Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Islamic Values Superior to Secular Values

Posted on: September 19, 2010 - 7:44pm

Atheistextremist

Posts: 5113

Joined: 2009-09-17

Offline

Islamic Values Superior to Secular Values

Jacqueline Maley

September 20, 2010

Islamic values are superior to ''flawed'' Western secular values and non-Muslims are in no position to lecture Muslims about the oppression of women, a speaker said yesterday at a Sydney rally against proposals to ban the burqa.

''Despite the intense negative propaganda against Islam and in particular the lies about its treatment of women, the number of Western women embracing Islam continues to rise at a rapid rate,'' said Fautmeh Ardati, a member of the Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir. ''By turning their backs on this flawed way of life, it is testament of the superiority of Islamic values over Western values.''

Women did not wear Islamic dress out of freedom of choice, Ms Ardati told the Lakemba rally.

The Muslim community rally against the proposed ban of the Niqab. Photo: Dean Sewell

''Because to use freedom of choice as a justification, then we are also accepting of women who undress out of this same freedom of choice, and we can never do this as Muslim women. We dress like this because it is the command of Allah, not any man.''

Women had two options, she said. ''The Western secular way of life, which robs a woman of her dignity, honour and respect, where she is considered little more than a commodity to be bought and sold, or the option of Islam, where a woman's dignity, respect and honour are priceless.''

Later she cited high rates of rape and domestic violence and said: ''They are in no position to be lecturing us about oppression and subjugation.'' Ms Ardati was one of five speakers at the rally, held at Parry Park, in reaction to a recent unsuccessful attempt by the NSW MP Fred Nile to introduce a bill banning the burqa.

The Premier, Kristina Keneally's recent statement re-affirming the right of Muslim women to wear the burqa was welcomed but Ms Ardati said the support of key politicians did not mean Muslims could ''relax''.

''Even if this bill is not passed in NSW now, who knows what will happen in one week, one month or one year?'' Ms Ardati said.

There were about 2000 people at the rally, with men and women segregated by a row of plastic markers. Male speakers spoke to the crowd from a podium at the front. The two female speakers spoke from the women's section, meaning most of the men had their backs turned to them.

Sheikh Shady al-Suleiman said Muslims loved Australia but rejected interference in the practice of their religion. ''Keep away from our affairs,'' he said.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

Women did not wear Islamic dress out of freedom of choice, Ms Ardati told the Lakemba rally.

''Because to use freedom of choice as a justification, then we are also accepting of women who undress out of this same freedom of choice, and we can never do this as Muslim women. We dress like this because it is the command of Allah, not any man.''

Interesting quote. Well if it's not imposing on their freedom of choice then a ban is not hypocritical to secular values and the debate becomes oh so much simpler, doesn't it? Allah is not the arbiter of Australian justice and if there's any good in the world, never will be.

My personal opinion is that our laws should strictly reflect the values we've undertaken to uphold as a nation. In which case the only issue to be resolved is to state unequivocally that no religious rite or privilege trumps our consensus system of justice. If a hijab garment is an impediment to personal identification in a circumstance legally, necessitating that degree of openness then compliant removal must be expected, by all parties.

The only question is to what degree is such compliance a necessary object in terms of justice for all Australians. It's probably not a blanket ban, even though that would suit me, personally, better because I find interacting with veiled people extremely disconcerting, but most likely it would be something evaluated for different scenarios on the bases of safety and necessity and there are plenty of those such as driver licensing, customs procedures for travel, court appearances etc..

As far as I'm concerned if Ms Ardati doesn't like that she has to disobey Allah and take it off for certain things I'm happy to remind her that he already controls plenty of other countries where her religion will always supercede consensus secular values and she has a choice to live where Allah's law is absolute. Let her tell me then his "superior morality" pays off in social goods after she tries to wriggle out of that one. She doesn't even have to leave home to see the vile influence his so called 'morality' has on the socioeconomic standards of a community, Allah has well and truly contributed his part to making Lakemba a violent, grimy, drug hole.

Ms Ardati wrote:

Women had two options, she said. ''The Western secular way of life, which robs a woman of her dignity, honour and respect, where she is considered little more than a commodity to be bought and sold, or the option of Islam, where a woman's dignity, respect and honour are priceless.''

I beg to differ that violent retribution for another person's infidelity affords a person 'priceless' degrees of dignity, nor does blame and vilification for another persons emotional and sexual immaturity. Allah's laws for women are the epitome of petulant misogynistic nonsense, what a disgustingly dishonest defense.

A woman can keep her modesty and dignity without the added encumbrance of capitulating to brainless archaic maleficence and a great many western women do. Ms Ardati is just as guilty, as anyone she decries, of falsely appealing to the extreme to defame a culture.

my mum lives at Padstow, I'd agree with you El - the issues in the area relate to unemployment, lack of education and an entrenched culture of reliance on handouts and a focus on blaming some one else for your problems. It's obviously not universal. The weird thing in this protest were the claims of racism in relation to broad Australian resistance to wearing the burqa. Given the fact Oz is only about 60 per cent anglo this is stupido. There was also a placard that said burn in hell, tho' the herald (I think) chose not to show this in their photo spread.

Obviously there are plenty of folks in that area from everywhere and it's an amazingly homogenous and pleasant family place to be. I'm actually very glad my mum lives there. She's surrounded by africans, lebanese, turks, central europeans, anglo aussies, indians, greeks, turks and chinese. It's a real melting pot and everyone talks to each other and keeps an eye on each other - just as they should do.

I dunno. From a point of principle I think people should be able to worship unhindered but I do struggle with the fact the core tenets of the abrahamic faiths are built on a hateful ad hom against unbelievers that denies them the real respect and the real tolerance and moral recognition every complete human being deserves. The pope's latest outbursts against secularists show what a sick dog that man is. It's not about the randy priests. Sin is all about the atheists. Fucking arsehole.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

There were about 2000 people at the rally, with men and women segregated by a row of plastic markers. Male speakers spoke to the crowd from a podium at the front. The two female speakers spoke from the women's section, meaning most of the men had their backs turned to them.

Lol.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Women had two options, she said. ''The Western secular way of life, which robs a woman of her dignity, honour and respect, where she is considered little more than a commodity to be bought and sold, or the option of Islam, where a woman's dignity, respect and honour are priceless.''

Women are generally inferior to men in Islamic countries. A commodity is essentially exactly what they are under Sharia law. Priceless my ***.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespearehttp://myanimelist.net/profile/butterbattle

I think a state has the right to protect it's cultural values, even through laws and if necessary, police.

People go to France for cheese, wine and cathedrals, not for cuscus, hookahs and mosques.

By immigrating into democratic country people should pledge to accept or at least publically tolerate the culture of their new homeland. It seems that both cultures have domestic violence, but democratic culture at least allows to spot it better, because the abused women aren't all hidden under the niquab. I wonder how many bruises and scars the niquabs hide.

Of course muslim women support niquabs and burkas along with their husbands and fathers. Or else!

Alternatively, I'd suggest that muslim men should wear the batman costume too, to see how degrading and restricting it is for human beings!Hey Abdul, is that you? Not you, black gown, that one black mantle behind you! Or maybe that's Rashid? No, it must be Sayid, his black is blacker than that. Hello Sayid, your eyebrows look as good as ever!

I think a state has the right to protect it's cultural values, even through laws and if necessary, police.

People go to France for cheese, wine and cathedrals, not for cuscus, hookahs and mosques.

By immigrating into democratic country people should pledge to accept or at least publically tolerate the culture of their new homeland. It seems that both cultures have domestic violence, but democratic culture at least allows to spot it better, because the abused women aren't all hidden under the niquab. I wonder how many bruises and scars the niquabs hide.

Of course muslim women support niquabs and burkas along with their husbands and fathers. Or else!

Alternatively, I'd suggest that muslim men should wear the batman costume too, to see how degrading and restricting it is for human beings!Hey Abdul, is that you? Not you, black gown, that one black mantle behind you! Or maybe that's Rashid? No, it must be Sayid, his black is blacker than that. Hello Sayid, your eyebrows look as good as ever!

What is at issue is not what one should or should not do when visiting someone else's house. What makes pluralistic societies better is not majority over minority or minority over majority, what makes pluralistic society better is advise and consent and oversight.

I warn you not to fall for the "when in Rome" fallacy. I wouldn't move to Iran and publicly submit to their culture "just because" that is what they do.

Pragmatism and common law, not common culture, are what civil governments should be based on.

If a Muslim wants to wear a Burka the only objection I have to it is when it comes to practical things like identity, I don't associate that objection to their label, but merely because of a REAL reality, just as if someone wanted to paint their face or wear a ski mask. Fine, untill it interferes with law, not popular law, or cultural law, but common law.

If I cant see your face to identify you, that makes it hard for me to do my job. If you are a witness in court, it is hard for the defense to face you if they don't know who you are.

I hate it when people use "if they come here then they should be more like us" NO! What makes the west better is not that we are all the same, but the west is better because those governments do not expect their citizens to be clones of each other.

It is not "either or" in that we should give in because minorities want taboo status, nor is it that minorities should bow to a majority. Just like if a posted speed limit says 55mph and a Muslim or Christian or atheist or Jew get pulled over doing 70, they should get a ticket.

Common law is what counts, not a demand that a majority cave in, or that a minority becomes a clone of the majority, or sits quietly at the back of the bus.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Let me add, when I say I don't object to a burka, I do and I don't. In the sense that we have freedom of religion as we should in the west, STRICTLY from a governmental standpoint, as long as such isn't interfering with pragmatic common law.

I most certainly from a historical perspective and a moral perspective suggest even to the women who claim to be wearing it on their own, that they are supporting a sexist past in a sexist history and "Allah told me so" is a cop out.

I find the burka to be morally repugnant, but in a free and open society, morality cannot be legislated. The only thing you can do is have someone arrested when they harm others.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Lol, or are you just being polite? I admit my hometown is in the outer west and I probably betrayed a good bit of my territorial bias against the south-western suburbs in that last post.

Well I spent a good part of my youth in Cronulla so we all have our little biases going on. I did outer west, too - Werro, St Clair, Sevo. All the usual suspects.

If I didn't have a clutch of leb christian and egyptian christian friends I'd probably feel differently about it.

Agreed.

..and Werrington just brings you into the fold of my home territory, how long were you there? ever hang out at the Axolotl? I worked at The Hills Centre in the 90's for a couple of years too, what's the chances we've crossed paths in RL you reckon?

What is at issue is not what one should or should not do when visiting someone else's house. What makes pluralistic societies better is not majority over minority or minority over majority, what makes pluralistic society better is advise and consent and oversight.

I warn you not to fall for the "when in Rome" fallacy. I wouldn't move to Iran and publicly submit to their culture "just because" that is what they do.

Pragmatism and common law, not common culture, are what civil governments should be based on.

If a Muslim wants to wear a Burka the only objection I have to it is when it comes to practical things like identity, I don't associate that objection to their label, but merely because of a REAL reality, just as if someone wanted to paint their face or wear a ski mask. Fine, untill it interferes with law, not popular law, or cultural law, but common law.

If I cant see your face to identify you, that makes it hard for me to do my job. If you are a witness in court, it is hard for the defense to face you if they don't know who you are.

I hate it when people use "if they come here then they should be more like us" NO! What makes the west better is not that we are all the same, but the west is better because those governments do not expect their citizens to be clones of each other.

It is not "either or" in that we should give in because minorities want taboo status, nor is it that minorities should bow to a majority. Just like if a posted speed limit says 55mph and a Muslim or Christian or atheist or Jew get pulled over doing 70, they should get a ticket.

Common law is what counts, not a demand that a majority cave in, or that a minority becomes a clone of the majority, or sits quietly at the back of the bus.

What I want to avoid is the separatism and supercitizen status. Separated, alienated minority can organize itself well and organized minority is more powerful than disorganized majority, specially in cities. Such an organized minority can gain a significant political influence, perhaps not in official laws, but certainly with local politicians.

The example is, gypsies. Some Roma people here have half-civilized communities. They don't work, they steal and destroy things. And they play the racism note. Their knowledge of social welfare laws is perfect and they can achieve much more than that, by shouting "duh-scryminatyon!" "racysm!" and "we know where you live, cunt!" Specially when they come everywhere, even to offices in a number of dozen or so. Even if you catch a gypsy stealing, don't attack him, because one little gypsy will escape and all the family will come at you and will beat you up.

But the worst thing is the positive discrimination they receive. They receive complete renovation of their apartments, new plastic windows, new kitchens, bathrooms, for which all normal, white families work their asses off and put themselves into debts for decades to come. Even worse, there are cases when government built fucking new HOUSES for gypsies. And you know what they did? They didn't use a kitchen-stove, they tore off parquets from the floor and made a bonfire in the middle of the room! They removed radiators, sold them for scrapmetal. And they even exchange meal tickets for money, in ratio 3:1.

Why? To get money for alcohol, cigarettes, gaming machines and so on. Not for anything else, they send their children to school until 12 years or so, then the children have to take care of a horde of younger siblings. Typical gypsies have learning diffculties at least, because parents don't care for them much in crucial time of early brain development. Not smoking or drinking during pregnancy is nonsense for them, because they are pregnant all the time.

No, don't think I am racist. What I say is reality here and much more. I have nothing whatsoever to object against vietnamese minority. These people are good, hard-working, they learn local language, have very little criminality or unemployment, and are very helpful for local society, I think. Most of my clothes is from their shops, but they easily work together with locals. Their children take education very seriously. Of course, some their businessmen grow cannabis en large and sell burned CDs, but only the police complains about that. Some people are concerned about "too much of them" and "they'll take us over" but not me. I think they either integrate with the society well, or at least don't separate themselves and suck the state dry of our taxes.

So basically, ethnic minority should be recognized, and if this minority is aggressive and might even intrude into politics and break the law with safety in numbers, then the state must protect itself. We whites are too damn civilized pussies. We are too tame to cope with organized cultural invasion of hard-boiled Muslims or other folks. If they can wrap local policy around the finger, we're in trouble. People should immigrate into a state, not invade it and recreate it to the likeness of their homeland's fundie hell. They should open up to the society, work with locals, enjoy the freedom, and if they want to wear turban or hijab during that, they of course can.

Because if they want to play the racism card, they should be given a traditional tribal sanctuary and territory, where they can let themselves be oppressed by their traditional tribal chieftains, as they damn please, in full cooperation with local offices. Refugees who meet civilized criteria would be of course welcomed in decent society. But not money, never should they receive money or anything without working as hard as anyone or paying for it as much as anyone.

Lol, or are you just being polite? I admit my hometown is in the outer west and I probably betrayed a good bit of my territorial bias against the south-western suburbs in that last post.

Well I spent a good part of my youth in Cronulla so we all have our little biases going on. I did outer west, too - Werro, St Clair, Sevo. All the usual suspects.

If I didn't have a clutch of leb christian and egyptian christian friends I'd probably feel differently about it.

Agreed.

..and Werrington just brings you into the fold of my home territory, how long were you there? ever hang out at the Axolotl? I worked at The Hills Centre in the 90's for a couple of years too, what's the chances we've crossed paths in RL you reckon?

But I was in Werrington in the 1980s...about 4 years. Also spent time at Blaxland. St Clair 91 to 95 and my ex-wife's parents lived at Castle Hill during that time so chances of path cross aren't bad. My little bro's business is still in St Mary's. He was a trolley boy at Penrith while at uni in the 80s. Giddy times.

Never did the Axolotl. Most my friends were in the shire so it was Cronulla Workers - I saw Chrissie Amphlett on the cargo net there in 1983 - and Cold Chisel - the Caringbah Inn, the Downunder Bar at St George Leagues, Carmens at Miranda. A pretty pathetic lineup when you think about it. All the string top shoes and white pants. We looked like bloody Bucks Fizz. I think I went to reflections in the Dru a couple of times when I lived at Seven Hills but I was a bit overdressed for it.

After all this I moved to Balmain, which back in those pre-gentrification days, I preferred. Living in Glebe is similar. Convenient and dirty.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck